Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

USC claim 4 month old bag does not have manufacturing defect


kp278
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1723 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

I bought my daughter a Firetrap school bag from USC for £23. It is 4 months old and the straps are failing. The store manager at USC claim this is fair wear and tear. I wrote to customer services and they are sticking by the store manager. I’ll attach some photos - is it fair wear and tear?

 

Thanks, Kristian

0B030814-316E-4A1F-9F4F-7D244A7F8C90.jpeg

9A713291-9393-4F16-B6A0-27565C7237B1.jpeg

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree, it looks rubbish but for £23, what else do you expect? However, you would expect the bank to last for a reasonable period of time and I would have expected at least a school year.

 

Are there any signs that may be has been knocked around, dragged around, swung by the straps and use for hitting people?? Et cetera et cetera? I suppose that they could say that it has been used for carrying loads which are too heavy for it.

 

Is it advertised as a school bag? Where did you get it?

 

Finally, for £23 – what are you prepared to do about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for £23 I would expect it to last a school year. Here is the item on their site

 

https://www.usc.co.uk/firetrap-luxe-backpack-ladies-715318?colcode=71531803

 

It seems to have a standard price of £45 (I'd be surprised if it ever sold for that)

 

The rest of the bag is in A1 condition. I sent a picture of the front to customer services with the damage pictures to illustrate the fact the bag has been well looked after.

 

The manager did say maybe the items placed in it were too heavy, but too heavy is relative. My daughter is 11, I wager too heavy and she wouldn't be able to lift the bag.

 

No not advertised as a school bag.

 

I'm quite stubborn so happy to write a couple of letters, ask them to prove the item was not sold with a fault, that sort of thing.

 

I'm hoping to garner opinion on whether this could be classed as fair wear and tear before I pursue further.

 

Thanks

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Twitter, Facebook and similar work wonders when you have a good public moan

 

keeping that in my back pocket... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking maybe something straightforward back to customer service:

 

I am not happy with the response. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods should be of a satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. My rights have been breached because the item you sold me is faulty. I would like a refund. As you may be aware, the onus is on the seller to prove the item was not faulty at the time of purchase. Please can you advise how you intend to demonstrate this. I look forward to hearing from you by....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in that case you should point out that you are asserting your right to demand a repair or a refund as the defect has occur within the first six months. These rights are granted under the consumer rights act.

 

You may as well put them on notice – but unless you can give them a scare on Facebook or elsewhere, you will have to bring a legal action – which you stand a very high chance of winning – unless they can be bothered to start producing evidence that the bag has been abused. I can't imagine that they would think that the argument is worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they responded, not quite sure what that first line means, but think they misunderstood what i was saying. anyway here it is:

 

 

This would determine a manufacturing fault if the item was sold to you as faulty, the item does not have a manufacturing fault.

 

You are welcome to obtain an independent inspection if you wish, however, we will not be over riding the stores decision and agree with their findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a basic, to-the-point reply:

 

As I said in my previous email the onus is on the retailer to prove the item was not faulty at the time of purchase, not for the consumer to prove the item was faulty. You can find this information from the citizens advice bureau or trading standards. You will need to prove that the fault was caused by my daughter. Please advise how you intend to demonstrate this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest response from customer services, maybe I'm not speaking to the right people:

 

 

The store have advised you of why this is, the fault is due to wear and tear of the item and is not a manufacturing fault.

 

The item has been used by you for over 5 months and therefore the item was not sold to you faulty and after inspection, is confirmed to not be of manufacturing fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that this is all entirely predictable. At the end of the day, they are banking on the fact that you will not be bothered to take court action for this kind of money. If you take a court action then you will effectively be banking on the fact that they won't think it's worthwhile defending. My money is on you. However you have to do be bothered to take the court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

if this is too long, basically i sent it in, they checked it over, they agreed with the store again, they sent it back, now i'm onto letter before action - as you suspected would happen

 

 

 

ok so i got hold of someone in customer services who asked for the bag to be sent in.

 

their response is, predictably:

 

I would like to confirm that I have now inspected your backpack and it is our belief that the issue is due to natural wear and tear and not an inherent manufacturing fault.

 

I will today return your backpack to you at our cost.

 

Please accept my sincere apologies for any disappointment caused.

 

to which i replied:

 

For a bag to suffer from natural wear and tear to the point of ripping in multiple places after only four months of use would surely suggest it was not of satisfactory quality nor fit for it's intended purpose?!?!
 
The Consumer Rights Act states:
 

(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—

 

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;

 

(b)appearance and finish;

 

(c)freedom from minor defects;

 

(d)safety;

 

(e)durability.

 

 

I would suggest the bag has been used in line with part 3a but that it has failed under part 3e and arguably part 3c.

 

Please reconsider your position on this. I would much prefer to avoid drawing this issue out any longer and do not relish the pursuit for costs should we be unable to reach an agreement without further action.

 

fast forward three days later i received the bag back and no reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how did you pay for it?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

go do a chargeback then.

to your bank.

costs in small claims are very limited.

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the phone to Lloyds now, they are saying because it wasn't faulty when I received it they cant open a case. They've cottoned onto the 'wear & tear' aspect of it.

I'm trying to push the "failed within six months the retailer has to prove it wasn't faulty" and "it wasn't visibly faulty, but it failed prematurely so it must have been faulty" angle

 

ok we got past that i think, but now stuck at the 120 day limit thing. Lloyds are saying its been over 120 days since the transaction, I'm saying the clock starts from when the fault was discovered. Struggling to find anything concrete on the interweb

 

No go on the chargeback. Lloyds asked how could it be proven my daughter hadn't damaged the ruck sack, by swinging it around for example. I pushed the 6 month upto retailer to prove angle, but no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as usual LLoyds needs educating on WHAT the chargeback rules actually ARE:

you have a total of 540 days to initiate the chargeback

the 120 days days starts when you realise you have a chargeback situation.

 

go educate them properly.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were educated sufficiently on the 120 day rule, but the sticking point in the end was how it could be proven my daughter didn't damage the ruck sack herself. I got a reference number from them in case I can take it further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

one problem is what is "fair" when it come to wear and tear. It is a school bag after all So what does the manufacturer say about how it tests the bags to determine a normal life cycle for normal waer and tear?

They arent going to answer that becasue in all liklihood they dont know.

 

If you knew exactly what materails the bag is made of and what the stitching material is I could work out a rough fatigue failure cycle is but you have the problem of what load was the bag subjected to  on average, as a peak load and what dynamics the bag went through ( ie being swung around to chuck it on ones back).

However, once you have badgered the manufacturer/retailer for the details of the materials and ask about the testing done they may well decide that you are a member of the awkward squad and do something as a GOGW.

get back onto them and demand to know about the testing and whether it conforms to ISO 9000 quality control standards (amongst others) and can you have a copy of the paperwork

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't whether it was fair wear and tear pretty irrelevant, and a bit of red herring?  Surely it matters whether purchasing a backpack for £23 could be reasonably expected to last longer than four months before fear wear and tear kicked in.  I think they're sending you off on a tangent by arguing that point because the real question is what is reasonable.  Whether it had a manufacturing fault or not is pretty irrelevant as well because it's still their responsibility to repair or replace.

 

Also, with the bank (from my experience), leave out any details.  Unfortunately debit card chargeback is set up to work against honesty because it's not as easy as doing it with a credit card.  I would speak to them again and just state you want a VISA chargeback carried out for £23 against xyz because you bought an item, it was not fit for purpose, and the retailer are refusing a refund.  The details are pretty irrelevant to the bank as they are a third party and don't hold any interest - Unfortunately you get a lot of bank employees that 1. don't know the rules and assume they know more than your average caller, and 2. will try to act as adjudicator/mediator in these scenarios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you buy something and overload it then you cant say it has a manufacturing fault. knowing what the material is and what stresses and strains it has been subjected to will determine whether it wasnt up to scratch. Now as I said, the retailer wont ahve a clue about this and the manufacturer probably hasnt tested their bags to destruction or used a suitable quality control systemt to get out of this argument whenh it is presented.

 

you cant claim that a new car had a manufacturing defect because it didnt work after you drove it into a wall so if the bag has been used in a way that wasnt identified by the maker as " normal" then you have to do the running. Once you start to show that you have some numbers and they dont then they have nothing to argue in court so will want to avoid going there at almost all costs. It is basicaly telling them you have a big stick without actually having to beat them with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough I took a look at my daughters bag

IMG-20190518-170157.jpg

 

I don't think theyre made to last anymore 

 

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...